- NEWS
- Testimony: Drunken Marine threatened officer to get car keys back 31 minutes ago
- Weather service issues red-flag fire warning 1 hour & 9 minutes ago
- Another up month for home prices 2 hours & 22 minutes ago
- Garden Grove considers two archways on Main Street 2 hours & 55 minutes ago
- SPORTS
- Hudler, Physioc let go by Fox 59 minutes ago
- UCLA-USC: Ten things to look for 2 hours & 40 minutes ago
- O.C. players make an impact in NFL 2 hours & 15 minutes ago
- USC football: 10 reasons why it went wrong 1 hour & 42 minutes ago
- BUSINESS
- O.C. surf companies give to save oceans 2 hours & 48 minutes ago
- Be thankful for this: $1 million in cash
- More homeowners struggle in Surf City
- Stop acting rich, start getting rich 1 hour & 31 minutes ago
- ENTERTAINMENT
- Who will win 'Dancing With The Stars'? 44 minutes ago
- Rattle, Berlin Phil, awash in Brahms 2 hours & 28 minutes ago
- Jim Gaffigan brings his new act to O.C.
- 'Little Women' well performed in Anaheim
- LIFE
- Thanksgiving wine picks
- Frumpy Mom: I'm flunking the 7th grade 3 hours & 2 minutes ago
- 7 For All Mankind opens first O.C. store
- From Argentina to Orange, via Ohio 37 minutes ago
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Poll: Should fishing be banned off the Laguna Beach coast?
October 20th, 2009, 12:12 pm · 65 Comments · posted by Pat Brennan, green living, environment editor
Three proposals for ending or limiting fishing along parts of the Southern California coast, including a possible fishing ban off Laguna Beach, will be weighed by a blue-ribbon task force this week in a three-day meeting — one expected to end in a major decision.
The task force is part of the state-sponsored Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, a public-private partnership that seeks to create new protected zones for marine life up and down the California coast. It is one of five stretches of California coastline targeted by the initiative; two, the north central coast and central coast, have been completed.
The three south coast proposals were hammered out over the course of about a year by a group of “stakeholders,” including members of the sport and commercial fishing industries, fishing and diving enthusiasts, environmental activists, government officials and others.
Each proposal consists of a map of proposed protection zones from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border; those marked in red would be areas completely off limits to fishing.
The maps were produced by a mixed group representing a variety of interests, a group dominated by fishing interests and a group dominated by environmental and conservation groups.
The blue-ribbon task force, meeting at the Hilton Long Beach today through Thursday, could choose one of the three proposals to recommend for final approval. But it could also create its own map based on one or more of the three, or based on none of them.
Each of the three proposed maps — even the one produced by the fishing group — shows a miles-long no-fishing zone off the Laguna coast.
The task force is expected to announce its decision Thursday. After that, their proposal will be sent to the state Fish and Game Commission, which could take a few months to as long as a year to give final approval.
The meeting begins at 1 p.m. today, and can be viewed live via web cast.
(Image courtesy Marine Life Protection Act Initiative.)
Latest posts:
65 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
-
-
-
Related news from other Register blogs- O.C. surf companies give $141,000 to protect oceans
- Want a cup of solar-brewed coffee?
- Surfline: Surf eases for rest of week
- Beauty and the beach: a look back at October
- Surfline: Warmer weather, dropping surf this weekend
- Blue whales sticking around later than usual
- Surfline: Waves on the way
- County stops water quality testing in Seal Beach
- Newport might get rid of fire rings
- Warning: stay out of the water for a few days
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Get great gift ideas for everyone on your list! Visit The Orange County Register's Holiday Gift Guide. -
16th annual People's Choice
From your favorite restaurants and shops to the best day spa in town, here are your choices for the number one places to eat, shop and play in O.C.
Browse the 2009 Best of Orange County winners -
ADVERTISEMENT
thats what newport piers for right? keep them dirty fisherman off our beautiful beaches!
Sorry to disappoint, but I fish and I am far from dirty.
..im dirty..
ME TOO! <3
I live three blocks from the Balboa pier. Its dirty and stinky. I will only get Ruby’s to go because I can’t eat and smell that.
It’s a “fishing” pier, not a “restaurant” pier. People have been fishing that pier long before “ruby’s” came along. Get over it you dirty yuppy enviro.
learn what you are talking about before you speak….people
DIRTY FISHERMAN!!!! My husband and I are both avid fishermen and I am far from dirty.
Laguna beach is a safe haven for homeless to which they now have a problem and you want to call us fisherman dirty. That is a good one.
Hey shut up.
You are one of them pothead hippies stinking up our country.
Get out of here, we fish forever, your worthless forever.
As a long time scuba diver, I can promise everyone that the fish count is beyond decimated in Southern California. I’m pretty conservative (and can’t flippin’ stand Obama), but I have to support pretty aggressive conservation efforts for our oceans. Shore fishing should be completely outlawed, and personal fishing off Catalina, Laguna, etc. should also be banned for, at least, the next 10-years. Abalone fishing should be completely banned as well.
wow snoop, didn’t know you were a diver.
Calvin - Please clarify how the fish count is beyond decimated in So Cal? Is this based purely on observation during your scuba sessions? What species?
Personally, I have seen far less sheepshead in the Laguna area than years past but the rest of the inshore species seem to still be there in great numbers, namely calico and sand bass.
Personally, I am for smaller limits (numbers of fish) and larger keep length or perhaps a slot size, similar to that of Florida’s snook fishery.
Didn’t know Snoop Dogg’s real name is Calvin Broadus. LOL
Just an FYI. My hubby and are catch and release ONLY!!!
It’s for the sport
Sockpuppet
maybe they should ban everything for the next 10 years, including diving. How does that fit your agenda skippy.
Its always obvious when people have no clue what they’re talking about. There already IS a moratorium on the take of Abalone south of the Golden Gate. The reason you don’t see them much in socal is due to withering foot disease not fishing….do some research douchebag.
On your next ascent….please hold your breath.
If you think the fish count is beyond decimated, then quite frankly you either are blind, or don’t know where and HOW to look. I dive the Laguna area frequently. Last time out I saw huge calico bass, several octopus, several very healthy-sized bull sheephead, large rock scallops, and other species as well. Sorry, but you’re plainly a miseducated troll.
Abalone, by the way, are still in Laguna. They are spotted with regularity. If you want to do something about helping them recover to their previous levels, do something about the pollution and runoff. Ever heard of withering foot? That’s the disease which nearly wiped them out, and it had nothing to do with fishing. The north coast has an extremely robust abalone fishery. What do they not have that we do in Laguna? Give you a hint. It’s brown, it flows out of Aliso Creek, and now it’s flowing out of your mouth.
rap sucks anyways.
Fishing should not be closed just because you hippies dont know any better.
How about spending that money into keeping our streets out of “Gangstas” and crime instead of messing up an innocent sport.
and calvin if you new anything you would know that abalone hunting is illegal iin most of the california coast…..
Along with banning fisherman fromt he shore, they should disband the docents (aka: nazis) that harass people wanting to view the tide pools in Laguna and Corona Del Mar. I can understand the need to preserve habitats and keep the dolts from destroying the beauty in these areas but when a qualified marine biologist is trying to educate young people about it all and the nothing better to do then be a snobby barely educated docent threatens to call the police because the biologist is standing in the water and pointing things out with a long stick, then the docents are impeding the preservation of the area by being over bearing and ridiculous.
“Overbearing and ridiculous” is as much a natural characteristic of a certain human type as “squoodgy and slimy” is to a nudibranch.
Why don’t you bleeding liberals just ban humans? Why don’t you just tell the truth that you ultimately hate humans!!!!!
Yeah, those dam bleeding liberals!
We all ought to be able to go down to the beach and fish with dynamite if we feel like it.
What’s next? Licenses for dogs?
wow that is taking a drastic approach isn’t it. When was the last time you saw someone using dynamite in the ocean stupid.
It’s foolish to try and ban the industry, it was here long before the housing and speculation that attracted the liberal thinking to the area. I could see restricting activities to piers and boats in the interest of public safety but the burden of enforcing an outright ban will not be worth the taxpayers cost. Sport fishing is already heavily taxed and legislated and making criminals out of outdoors men is not fair. People will not just move down the shore, though I think the experience is better under the water it is not right to deprive tax paying citizens of yet another right with their own cash.
If DFG had more money, maybe they could go after all the people who don’t follow the rules. If you fish you need to know what to do and what not to. Too many times I’ve seen people who have no clue, out there fishing and have no idea what they caught, if there is a limit, size or otherwise. Basically, if you fish, educate yourself or pay the fine. My husband just ran into DFG this weekend coming in at 1am. He was ok, because he knows the regulations. Not everyone does and they don’t help the situation. We shouldn’t pay for other’s mistakes.
where will the bums go now? (lets try to force them up to LA)
czykoc, nice generalization. Way to think it through….
Have they banned trolling at Main Beach?
How about banning dogs at the beach.
Thats a whole different story.
what the heck is happening to america? ban this, ban that. no more alcohol at the beach. no more fire pits. what next? laying out in the sun? how about surfing? how about watching sunsets?
i say ban greenies and park rangers. problem solved!
The poll question above is shortsighted.
When will people understand that overfishing is inevitably BAD for the economy? Sure, profits are higher in the short run. But what about the missed profits from the years of future fishing you could have made instead of harvesting the sea clean?
Think of it this way; if you were a cattle farmer, and the only way you could get more cattle was to breed, would you slaughter as many cows every season as possible just to turn an immediate profit, or would you try increasing the size of your herd?
Well then, much like the lobster report cards, they can have us use report cards for fishing as well. Run studies, limit quantity and so forth and then make an educated ban or not. But the fact remains that there will always be those who do not follow the rules, which brings us back to my statement about more funding for DFG to catch those not adhering to regulations. I know the studies take time, but some of us know and respect the environment to the point that we love to fish but obey the limits and regulations as well. Wish everyone was as honest.
Laguna is FAR from being harvested clean. There are no studies that I have seen that convey this notion. If the government is going to ban fishing in an area such as Laguna, they better have some concrete scientific proof. Well funded tree huggers that ‘notice’ less fish doesn’t quite cut it for me.
Like I have said before, reduce keep limits and/or impose larger size minimum or slot limit.
I don’t think fishermen are slaughtering as many fish as possible. Besides being a generalization, you may be confusing this with COMMERCIAL fishing. This article/poll has to do with RECREATIONAL fishing.
As far as inshore fishing is concerned, I have kept about 5 bass in the last 3 years. Catch and release is the norm. It should be encouraged wherever possible. I don’t take any fish inshore or offshore that can’t be consumed within a week’s time.
It is scary to see places get fished out- bluefin tuna in the med- alot of my friends are fisherman, however, I say conserve and charge more for a fishing license.
Yes, but this is because of commercial fishing not sports fishing.
Sports fishing is minuet portion of the fish taken.
If anyone needs to be regulated, it’s the purse seiners, long liners and trollers.
These companies wipe out entire areas of fish. Just look at all the seiners out in mexican waters during the tuna runs. 5 or 6 boats fishing the same area will catch hundreds of tons of fish. The average sports fishing boat will get 200 fish on a GOOD day. You can’t compare the 2 as being the same.
Let’s all call apples, apples and oranges,oranges..
Im an American *amit! and I’ve got rights!!! And if I wanna fish then the govurnmnt cant stop me!
Jeez. Wish I would’ve fished more when I was younger, never realizing that it would soon be verboten. Wonder what other activities need to be curtailed? Pretty soon playing video games will be all people will be allowed to do. Guess kids are ahead of the curve already…’cause they don’t bother doing outdoor activities anymore anyways.
Banning fishing would be fair if all water activities (boating, scuba, swimming) were banned as well. Keep the beaches pristine by allowing no swimming or beach usage (to protect the sand dollars and other fauna). Declare all the fishing banned areas to be watercraft exclusion zones in order to not disturb marine life.
Once the total ban is in effect, ban all runoffs into the ocean. That should be fair enough!
Let the madnees begin……
X-DEM, The irony is that we have “protected” areas like Newport Upper bay, which is suppose to be a ecological reserve with strict “protections”, and from Little Corona to El Morro is a EPA designated ASBS (Area of Special Biological Significance), that has even stricter standards (NO RUNOFF even during rain events!) of “protection”. Well, what a joke! The City of Newport Beach has not met these protections and is daily in violation of the ASBS and the Federal Clean Water Act, and because The Irvine Company developed most of the land that causes coastal runoff to these “protected” areas, nobody has the funds to challenge them and they feel they’ve developed their projects to the letter of the law, which they lobby lawmakers to work for them. So they call it “ground water” and that makes it all better! Plus most of the coastal enviro/water quality groups have taken money/fundraising donations from The Irvine Company and don’t really want to piss them off, they need those comfy salaries and connections. The Upper bay receives 15-20 million gallons of urban runoff from San Diego Creek and Delhi Channel that is laced with toxics, and continues through the lower bay and then out the harbor entrance. Fine toxic coated sediment (like smog) settles down the coast into these “protected” waters. So like your saying, runoff needs to be banned and cities and land owner/developers need to pay the price to stop the muck going into our “protected” waters. A recent sampling (SCCWRP 2009) of certain toxics in the upper bay found levels of DDT/DDE in mullet and anchivies exceeding EPA limits 50-100 times permissible standards (this never made the news). The Irvine Company and the County wants the EPA to lower the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) amounts of DDT/DDE in San DIego Creek! To skirt “protective” standards for the County Basin Plan, which is renewed every five years, which is a county wide permit to allow polluting the coast as agreed. Recent Southern California F&G and Health agencies issued fish consumption warnings for fourteen species of fish along our coast. So you see, there’s more underneath the MLPA than meets the eye.
Where do all these people get the time to rule over my life? I don’t fish, but if I want to, I should be able to. I see my freedoms being eaten away piece by piece, while I work to pay for these wackos in government. There is something wrong with this picture.
Give it a rest!
MLPA considerations are flawed and don’t really protect the physical health of sea life, it just keeps us humans from fishing (No Take Zones) in these up for closure proposed areas. Clean water, stopping urban sprawl and management is the answer, not closures.
Fish & Game does a good job regulating local fishing limits.
There are concerns of regulations possibly impacting human activities below the “mean high tide” area’s that aren’t crystal clear in regards to our coastal recreation. As mentioned, foreign commercial fishing fleets are paying huge permit fees in near Mexican waters, and practically put up a wall of fishing nets stretching for miles to scoop up vast amounts of game fish. This adds a big deficit to Southern California sport fishing populations. Also, Sheepshead fish are declining not because of sport fishing catches, but because of annual commercial fishing pressures.
Spiny lobster and sheepshead are part of the declining “predatory balance” which are especially critical in keeping sea urchin populations in check to our local reef populations. Sea urchins devour giant kelp holdfasts and consume other marine algae’s that are critical to a functioning kelp forest eco-system.
Local sport-fishing clubs and organizations are the better conservationists here, not the “poser” enviro “stakeholders” that might have gone on a couple of fishing trips and think they know how the local fisheries work.
Its an Environmentalist money mechanism.
This is a typical liberal agenda. Why don’t these people go after the real cause of our ocean troubles. Consider the fact that 25 years ago the ocean ecology was thriving, kelp patties covered the ocean surface and fish were abundant. Fishing was legal and the commercial fishing industry was thriving and prosperous. That was the time when Laguna was still considered out in the boonies. The only thing that has changed is the inland cities were born and populations increased to the point of over saturation. The brilliant city planners failed to forsee that all their pollution would have a devastaing effect on the ocean. Now 25 years later all the short sighted irresponsibles are blaming it on the exploitation of fishing and recreational diving.
The numbers of fish being caught is insignificant in proportion to the devastaing effect a mpa will have on the fishing industry. If you want to see an extreme example of what pollution does to the ocean just go down to San Onofre and see for yourself that the few remaining strands of kelp, the fish and the lobsters have a white film on their surfaces, not to mention this is a no mans land for fishing. I argue that the lack of sealife is a sympton of pollution not that of fishing and San Onofre is a perfect example. The only reason the liberals are going after fishing as opposed to pollution is that it is easier to ban fishing than it is to re-engineer our waste facilities. What will it be next. You can’t enter the ocean with suntan lotion on? Oh, they won’t ban that because that would be classified as pollution.
I really wish people would educate themselves on this issue. Stop drinking the Kool aid !!!
Just follow the money and the people on the comities deciding these closures. Once you see the true agenda you WILL rethink these closures.
Hope you all like off shore oil rigs as your view Laguna !!!!
Also keep in mind that the way the MLPA is written, once they close an area to no access it will mean NO ACCESS. No fishing, diving, surfing, swimming, and, if enforced as a no access, you will not be able to even walk on the beach because you may harm a sand crab or micro-organism.
So if you still believe that the MLPA is only about stopping fishing, well……………..I hope that Kool aid tastes good !!!
We are about to loose our fishing rights! People opposed to fishing have taken on the cloak of environmental activism in an effort to shut down all fishing in the USA and have moved the fight to southern California. These people are well funded, politically savvy and will stop at nothing in an effort to ban all fishing in our state at any cost. In the beginning the MLPA was viewed as a scientific method of stabilizing fish stocks in the coastal areas of our country. Unfortunately no science has been used in the So Cal process, only heart felt opinions held by people that think Disney films are based on science, i.e. Penguins talk and dance don’t they? As fishermen we want sustainable fish stocks, clean pollution free water and access to the ocean so we can continue 10,000 years of fishing legacy. How is this different from what the environmentalist want, its not! That’s the issue here; they want to put an end to fishing in the USA bottom line and will not stop until fishing is illegal.
As a responsible fisherman I am opposed to no take fish reserves that do nothing to increase threatened fish stocks but do allow special interests and organizations with massive amounts of money and influence to control our oceans and beach access. Enough is too much especially during a time when our economic future is at stake and the MLPA’s will suck up another $45 million dollars a year at today’s estimation while providing no science to show it can improve fish stocks at any level.
Ecofreaks, enviromentalnazis and indoctrinated children have no right to be a part of this process
you can leave the “not in my back yard” elitist off the voting list also.
Conservationist on both sides of the issue who are willing to compromise and have an honest debate are the only one who should speak on the issue…
but this is California…
we are way past the notion of having an informed position
now it all about emotions
Save the seals…screw the father of 4 trying to support his family
Save my view… screw the fisherman sharing the resorce
The mayor is the only elected official in laguna with half a brain
the others are elitist who lie and manipulate the facts to get their way.
And where the HELL are the fathers of these poor indoctrinated children?????
Do you men have a clue what these women and teachers are filling your kids brains with????
Your raising a bunch of sissie boys for the next generation
God help America
DB. Right in the Ballpark brotha. I’m 16 and hell no I am not gonna go with those envirowierdos just because those feminist.lez.never.even.stepped.out.of.the.city people believe they are right. They should just hide back in their basement in their potsmoking circles.
they should go after commercial fishing boats. they are the one that scoop too,too,too many fishes. if you go to the supermarkets, you will notice some of the fishes are old which will be throwing away.
Wow,
Nothing like seeing how truly detached people are from our environment as well as their government by reading some of these comments.
Let’s start simple.
-OVER FISHING IS ILLEGAL!!! What will more protection do if what we are trying to prevent is already illegal??? Are we going to make it MORE illegal? How about we work on enforcement where CA has the least amount of Wardens than any other state (Yes this is true, and they have to accept work furloughs and are not allowed to work overtime.)
Second:
-TARGETING OF PROTECTED SPECIES IS ILLEGAL!!! (Unless you’re the Monterey Bay Aquarium).
Last, I would like to point out that FISHERMAN have been at the forefront of ocean conservation for the last century.
FISHERMAN HAVE PAID FOR MORE CONSERVATION MEASURES AND STUDIES THAN ALL OTHER GROUPS COMBINED.
That is a matter of fact.
Here is a new term for most of you.
GREENWASHING
-it means to use the environment as a ruse in order to push big agenda’s and business deals.
The only thing the MLPA’s prevent is fishing.
Pollution, poison run off, development, oil exploration, wave energy projects and offshore platforms are not addressed by this legislation.
SO HOW IN THE HELL DOES AN MPA PROTECT IT’S INHABITANTS???
It doesn’t,
Hence… You’ve been GREENWASHED!!!
The MLPA is law and fishing will be baned on part of the OC and Laguna Coast……. The question is exactly where! This poll is just a bad joke. Explain the issues. and show the choices available.
Know this: 3 proposed plans are being considered.
Plans 1 and 3 close most beach access to fishing. Plan 2 closes some, but leaves some open. All plans will result in lost jobs and lost tax revenue. Plan 3 would have the biggest negative econmic impact.
It’s all about C&R people. Fish and release what you catch. Simple conservation that we all can live with.
Mr. Smoka Da Weedy has confirmed that we should instead ban medical marijuana to career stoners. Thats for the insight you mental midget.
I vote no — do not close our beaches to fishing and spearfishing. This is how we feed our families and the rules and regulations are already way too harsh. I respect the ocean, Iove the ocean, and I spend alot of time in the ocean. I want to protect it for my children and I am doing that by fishing and spearfishing responsibly. I take only what I eat and very little at that. The ocean is very rich and isn’t in as much trouble as many claim. If you don’t believe me, please get out of your chair and go for a dive. You will see the truth.
NO, and I mean NO!
NO IS NO THIS WILL ALSO COST CALIF MONEY WE DONT HAVE WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THIS. ALL SO IF YOU CLOSE ALL OWER FISHING THAN AT LEAST 45,000,000 OF AT 48,00 EACH WONT BE NEEDING FISHING PERMITS ANYMOORE.DO THE MATH
No!!
There is no scientific data which supports the need to close down large areas to fishing. A new study published in the July 31 issue of Science magazine reveals that the California Current ecosystem has the lowest fishery exploitation rate of any place in the world examined by co-authors Ray Hilborn and Boris Worm and 19 other scientists. The scientists claim that large scale closures are completely un-necessary in maintaining our fisheries.
The environmental extremists preaching that our oceans are in crisis are doing nothting more then telling lies to the public who are naive and don’t the facts so they can win over their support.
In areas in the central and Northern Calirfornia were many of the prime fishing areas have been closed the few areas left open have been wiped all the added pressure from anglers left with few areas left to fish. There is no load balance.
In the case of Laguna this is nothing more then beach front home owners looking for a way to privitize their beach. Once it’s a reserver it may still be open to the public but access will be determined by a commitee and out of the publics hands.
The MLPA process has been privately funded by extreme environmentalists who keep all the decision makers in their back pocket including the governator. This has been a corrupt process and in the end the public is the biggest loser.. They are taking our rights and liberties. What so many gave their lives to protect is being swept with the tide of enviromental extremists, and rich property owners non of which have the slightest clue about fishery management.
JerryG
jerry Giberti says:
October 23, 2009 at 12:12
Well said.
Let’s see, we saved the seals from decimation, right? What exactly do these seals eat? Fish, fish and more fish. The seals are so overpopulated again that it is nearly impossible to fish when they are around anyway. I would like to see the pounds per day per adult seal consumed, and if we “thinned the heard”, my bet is that the fishes would replenish quite nicely. There are many species that this “thinning” by man is done to protect the fragile environment where overpopulation is a threat. The seals only natural predator is shark, and there seem to be fewer of them around, probably b/c of the poor water quality.
JMHO
why would you want to eat anything from our water anyways-people become sick just swimming in it!
RICH AREA AND POLITICIANS TRYING TO KEEP THE “DIRTY LOW-LIFE FISHERMEN” OUT OF THEIR EXCLUSIVE CITY!HOW DARE YOU!
I and my fellow fishermen/women –spearfishing, kayakfishermen, lobstermen-women are not DIRTY and LOW-LIFE!
We have jobs and we have families!
I am just sick at what happened on Nov. 11 !!! No, the BRTF never came to a decision on Oct. 23-24 !! Therefore, they had a meeting this past Tuesday Nov. 11.
However, it is not over. We still have the F&G to make the final decision based upon many facts and figures.